Completed review of article. Improvements made since last GA review. Still needs some work, though. Marked as "fail" but will give a week or so for improvements to be made before closing out officially. --domesticenginerd03:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over three weeks since the above: domesticenginerd hasn't edited since July 24, and the nominator, Horserice, hasn't edited since June 29. Under the circumstances, I'm closing the nomination, as no improvements of any significance have been made since the above, and the article has four "citation needed" templates, which is not what you want to see on an article wishing to attain GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
Many strides made since last GA review. Nonetheless, still at standards of a B-class university aricle. Need to work on references, expanding some of the topics, and neutralizing article.
A few citations needed, particularly for viewbook-esque statements.
Undue weight to diversity of student body. For instance, there is a table of the ethnic enrollment under "Student Life"; however, there is no reference to it in the text. Also, should elaborate further on background of student body (e.g. in-state, out-of-state, international percentage).
Primarily seems like viewbook/advertisement for school. Outside of brief mention of chancellor's salary, does not address any controversies (e.g. 2010 diversity job, 2008 admissions mistake, racism issues [including 2010 fraternity party & 2011 noose], etc.)
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Pass
On hold
Fail